Michelle Malkin » “Skinback” at the Los Angeles Times

“Skinback” at the Los Angeles Times

By Michelle Malkin • March 29, 2008 03:12 PM

Jill Stewart weighs in on the Rathergate of the West Coast:

The amazing Page One Los Angeles Times article today, correcting a probably libelous Times Calendar story published on St. Patrick’s Day and written by investigative reporter Chuck Philips, is known in the journalism biz as a “skinback.” I don’t know exactly where the term “skinback” originated, but you could feel the skin getting peeled off Philips piece by piece in the retraction by Jim Rainey. It describes how Philips got duped by con artist James Sabatino into running a false story that implicated Sabatino himself, as well as associates of Sean “Diddy” Combs, in the non-fatal but brutal 1994 shooting of the late rapper Tupac Shakur.

Apparently, five-time loser Sabatino was so desperate to entangle himself in the lives of famous rappers that he created the fake FBI document on an old typewriter, implicating himself and talent manager James Rosemond. Chuck Philips bought it, writing that Rosemond and Sabatino “set up the rapper Tupac Shakur to get shot at Quad Studios,” and then connected them to Combs’ Bad Boy Records.

But the document was filled with dead-giveaways that it was a fake, which any independent documents expert could have told the Times. Credit goes to The Smoking Gun for ripping the lid off this putrid mess. There were problems with the Philips story even before The Gun went off.

It was so jammed with off-record sources it read like a piece from the Bad Old Days before corrupt journalist Jayson Blair so badly dirtied The New York Times. Today, among the nation’s big dailies, the L.A. Times has one of the most useless policies for controlling its overuse of unnamed sources, which proliferate there like a plague. Take away the anonymous sources, and Philips’ entire story turned on a bogus document.

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Dave Lucas

Trackback URL

Comments

#275402

On March 29th, 2008 at 3:30 pm, brooklyn red said:

I could never figure out why anonymous sources are legally permitted anyway… I mean you can’t use them in a court, so why in a newspaper?
#275409

On March 29th, 2008 at 3:59 pm, zorro said:

The print media is now in act of dying right in front of our eyes. Writing anything, truth or lie, just to sell enough advertisements to get through this week. They have to use anonymous sources, no time to properly source a story. Cash flow is their only purpose now.
#275428

On March 29th, 2008 at 5:12 pm, DagneyT said:

When will these scam artists learn that you cannot get away with this kind of nonsense, thanks to the internet. Someone (usually Michelle) will “out” you! Dumb, just plain dumb!
#275431

On March 29th, 2008 at 5:33 pm, Speakup said:

Have you noticed the outrage from media ethics mavens across the country?

Yeah, cue the chirping crickets.

If Combs sues perhaps the coverage will heat up a little.

The LAT has been a sad sack for a long time now, too bad their restructuring isn’t helping much.
#275441

On March 29th, 2008 at 6:15 pm, JonR said:

Let’s see… LA Times/National Enquirer/Globe/NY Times and so on. What is the difference? The newspapers have degenerated into tabloids that we read for entertainment value. Not real news let alone the truth! So much for “journalism”.
#275459

On March 29th, 2008 at 7:08 pm, d1carter said:

Is there any surprise that newspaper advertising money is drying up?
#275702

On March 30th, 2008 at 3:03 pm, pubscout said:

Don’t know if it’s relevant in this case, nor do I wish to offend or excite any prurient interests, but “skinback” is a term used by many uncircumsized men when engaged in thorough cleansing of the, um, region.

Come to think of it, maybe it is relevant….
#275727

On March 30th, 2008 at 4:25 pm, CC said:

Could one of the reasons be that Diddy is a Republican?

As far as I know, he is.
#275806

On March 30th, 2008 at 10:52 pm, NHMagenta said:

Sean Coombs would be wise not to sue as I believe if he does, his business life will go under the microscope … and given his association with “talents” who appear to be in many cases hardened criminals with more criminals as hangers-on that sort of attention could wind up with Coombs in serious legal difficulties … as for the future of the print media I see most of the dailies eventually imploding to be replaced with “free” papers.
I’m sure the NY Times will be around just from sheer inertia for many more years, though not as fat as it is today.

Will be interesting to see if this has any effect on the LA Times ad revenues or circulation.
#275853

On March 31st, 2008 at 5:55 am, graysonret said:

The papers understand one thing. People love sensationalism. More people are interested in some movie star’s affairs than what is happening in the world. It seems more people know what Britney Spears is doing and the latest on American Idol, than can point out Iraq on a map of the world. The “news” shows and papers fall all over each other, to be the first to get out some new piece of gossip; many times without verification. There isn’t time for that. I get my news from the internet. That way I get different views on the news; not one opinion. I generally pass the gossip. At least on the net I don’t have to suffer through lots of junk, just to get 5 minutes of news every hour.